The path from lobbying in Washington, D.C, to a change of policy in India is a long and uncertain one involving multiple steps. First, Pfizer needs to convince Congress that action against India is warranted. Second, Congress needs to get the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to apply pressures on the Indian government. And third, the pressures would need to be effective. In this post, I discuss the third link in the chain. Continue reading
Recent Indian patent rulings, as well as those to come, are changing the intellectual property rights (IPR) landscape for emerging economies. They are watched with keen interest by other developing nations to measure the response of innovative pharmaceutical firms and the global community. Whether or not they are precedent-setting remains to be seen. Continue reading
The Indian government made several critical patent decisions over the past year. Their impact on the Indian intellectual property (IP) landscape is still evolving, with important implications for IP rights, the global pharmaceutical industry, Indian consumers, and emerging economies.
The stakes are high and reflecting on the ways in which these decisions will shape the future of industry and innovation is essential. In this column, I consider the implications of these decisions for innovative pharmaceutical manufacturers and their strategies. Continue reading
I’d like to introduce a guest post from Ranga Iyer, former MD of Wyeth Limited and a drug industry veteran. He is currently an independent advisor to Indian and foreign drug companies on strategy, policy, as also mergers and acquisitions. In 2009, Ranga, then president of the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India, was ranked the 33rd most influential pharma leader in the world by UK’s World Pharmaceutical Frontiers. While this blog has welcomed the compulsory licence issued by the Patent Office to Natco, Ranga has raised some strong arguments against. The views expressed are personal and do not reflect those of any organisation that he has professional relationships with.
Media and civil society have hailed the Indian Patent Office’s decision to grant a compulsory licence to Natco to make a generic of Bayer’s liver and kidney cancer drug Nexavar. But there is more than one reason why this licence will hurt innovation while doing little to enhance affordability. Continue reading
In granting a compulsory licence to Natco on Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar the patents office has done its job well. It has put a provision in the law meant expressly to balance public good with incentives for innovation to its right use. See Shamnad Basheer’s lucid analysis of the order on spicyip.
But it is important that this not be the predominant or only method deployed by the government to improve drug access and affordability to millions of Indians. Given its visibility, there is a danger of the patents and CL debate hijacking or at the very least taking up prime space in the discussions around the country’s healthcare agenda at the cost of other, less high-profile, measures that could be equally effective. Continue reading
I quickly read through the Indian Patent Office’s order granting a compulsory licence to Hyderabad’s Natco to make and sell its generic of Bayer’s patented liver and kidney cancer drug Nexavar in India. While I’m no legal expert and I’ve just speed-read the order, some things just stand out so here goes. Continue reading